In most democracies, elections are hotly contested in the media. Not so today's presidential elections in Rwanda. Rwanda's media have been sent the very clear message not to write anything critical of Paul Kagame, who will today certainly be re-elected as president.

Particular issues to be avoided include rifts within Kagame's party, the Rwandan Patriotic Front, deteriorating political freedoms, speculation regarding Kagame's alleged involvement in the shooting of a dissident Rwandan general in South Africa in June of this year and the murder of a journalist last month, as well as any mention of the relationship between Hutus and Tutsis.

The very use of these labels is frowned upon, and discussion of the relationship between the two will lead to a prosecution and very likely incarceration under Rwanda's "Law relating to the punishment of the Crime of Genocide Ideology".

Criticism of Kagame's government or Kagame personally is dealt with under Rwanda's vaguely worded laws on libel, insult, contempt of the head of state or publishing "falsehoods". A conviction under any of these leads to imprisonment or a heavy fine and repeat offenders can expect to see their media outlet closed.

It is in fact highly unlikely that any of the country's remaining newspapers will have written anything that comes even close to these red lines. Over the past 12 months, Rwanda's few independent newspapers, already struggling and publishing on shoestring budgets, have been subjected to a campaign of harassment and intimidation and most of their journalists have fled abroad.

Two newspapers in particular, Umuseso and Umuvugizi, have been targeted. Both were published in the Kinyarwanda language and reach a large readership. Both have been critical of government policies, and neither has shied from naming those involved in corrupt or nepotistic activities.

For example, Umuseso published stories investigating the reasons behind General Kayumba Nyamwasa's escape to South Africa, while Umuvugizi reported disharmony in the army ranks and had the temerity of suggesting that Kagame's party, the RPF, was following in the footsteps of Robert Mugabe's Zanu PF.

It follows that these papers are "of concern" to Kagame.

In response, the Media High Council (a constitutional body that is nominally independent, but whose members and chief executive are appointed by the government and which is "supervised" by the Ministry of information) has over the last few years repeatedly written to both newspapers requesting them to "accept their errors" and inviting them to "review their working methods" (click here for the MHC report).

When they refused to do so, Rwanda's Minister of Information met the MHC to "[discuss] … the state of the media in Rwanda and jointly [seek] ways of finding lasting solutions to the problems facing it … "

A further request to the newspapers followed, to apologise and accept their errors, and when both newspapers again refused to comply the MHC wrote to them this April, notifying that they had been suspended for six months for misdeeds including "publishing false news", "insulting, slandering, defaming innocent individuals", "publishing biased information" and "abusing and insulting the president of the Republic of Rwanda".

Both papers have also been pursued through the courts. Over the last year, Umuseso and Umuvugizi have been fighting various privacy and defamation actions taken against them by, among others, government ministers.

"Truth" is the only realistic defence in the cases against them, and the Rwandan courts hold newspapers to truly bizarre standards in this regard. For example, in one recent case Umuseso reported that a prominent Rwandan businessman was wanted in South Africa for fraud. The businessman promptly issued a libel claim. Days later, news came that he had been arrested at Heathrow over a South African extradition request. For fraud. This ought to have stopped the libel case, but not in Rwanda: the courts would not accept news reports of the extradition as evidence and required original copies of court papers from South Africa and London. Unable to produce these, Umuseso's editor was convicted of libel.

In other cases, Umuseso and Umuvugizi have published stories of corruption that relied on confidential sources. Since source protection is weak in Rwandan law, these cases are virtually unwinnable in court.

Umuvugizi and Umurabyo have been joined in court by the journalists of another independent newspaper, Umurabyo. It was recently indicted under Rwanda's controversial laws against genocide ideology and sectarianism for several articles deemed to be "divisionist" in nature.

These laws, ostensibly enacted to prevent any future genocide but whose impact on media freedom has been criticised by the UN's human rights committee, provide for extremely harsh sentences. The Umurabyo journalists face up to 50 years in prison for articles in which they question the fairness of the status quo following the genocide.

As a result of all of this, Umuvugizi and Umuseso have been forced out of the country and their reports no longer reach Rwanda. The Umuseso journalists now publish an English language newspaper from neighbouring Uganda. When they recently tried to truck copies of the paper into the country, these were impounded at the border.

Umuvugizi publishes online but its website is blocked by the Rwandan government. One of its journalists who remained in the country was shot outside his house in June.

For Kagame, stability and economic progress trump democracy and newspapers that rock the boat are seen as a distraction. He has hired western PR companies to polish up his image and promote the country's gorilla trails. The memories of 1994 are fading, and in the eyes of the west, Rwanda is a success story. But how sustainable is a country that relies on censorship and oppression to maintain its rule?